iOS-Inspired iPhoto for Mac Update Coming This Summer?

macrumors bot

The next version of iPhoto will be redesigned to be more like the iOS version of iPhoto, according to Belgian website Apple Weetjes [Google Translate].

The report includes a couple of details about potential new features. The new Mac version of iPhoto is said to gain the excellent iPhoto Journals feature and a redesigned photo retouching system, both inspired by the iOS version of iPhoto. The site also claims that the new iPhoto will require OS X Lion or Mountain Lion -- Snow Leopard won't be supported.

Apple Weetjes doesn't have much of a track record on rumors, but the features they mention do seem likely to make their way to the Mac version of iPhoto at some point.

macrumors 6502

iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

macrumors regular

Does this mean we'll no longer be able to organize photos on our Mac using iPhoto!? And that the UI will become completely unintuitive and my mom will no longer be able to use it and I will be at a loss as to explain it to her!?

Oh goodie! YAY!

OK, admitedly I may be being harsh, but i just yesterday purchased iPhoto for iPad and was terribly frustrated and disappointed with it within 90 seconds. Normally I do my homework before dropping change on an app, but I tend to just trust Apple... And I (apparently?) falsely assumed iPhoto for iOS would allow me to *organize* photos ala the Mac version, thus replacing the Photos app??? Either I'm a moron... or whooooops.... $5 in the trash. So disappointed. *Sigh*.

macrumors newbie

[/QUOTE]Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.[/QUOTE]

If you can afford to own a DSLR and trips to Europe, then just spring for the faster internet connection. Or you can use ipad's 4g connection and that is much faster than 1.5Mbps.

macrumors 6502

If you can afford to own a DSLR and trips to Europe, then just spring for the faster internet connection. Or you can use ipad's 4g connection and that is much faster than 1.5Mbps.[/QUOTE]

First and foremost I can't get a faster connection. Remember, we are talking about upload bandwidth here, not downloads. Also, I would go way over any caps imposed on a 4G iPad. Remember, one shoot will net me 3.7-6 GB of data...

macrumors 6502

Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.

iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

Click to expand...

I some what agree with you. Compared to music, cloud for pictures, assuming each file around 15MB isn't too different from music. But I think, most would agree that your example of 250-400 shots per shoot is way above an average user. It wont work for you. Nothing will work for you.

macrumors 68040

I hope they bring the "find similar pictures" to Mac iPhoto and Aperture soon. That's a very crucial feature in modern photo management apps and it's basically missing from Mac offerings of Apple right now. Hard to believe they brought such a powerful feature to iOS iPhoto first.

macrumors 6502a

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

Click to expand...

Photostream is a consumer product. It is designed to push iDevice photos to other devices, getting rid of the need to transfer your photos to your computer. Doing so, it backs up your photos to your PC, without the need to do any work.

For $100, you can get 55GB of yearly storage. That will satisfy 99.9% of the population. The fact that you may be in the 0.1 percent, is tough luck .

macrumors 6502

I some what agree with you. Compared to music, cloud for pictures, assuming each file around 15MB isn't too different from music. But I think, most would agree that your example of 250-400 shots per shoot is way above an average user. It wont work for you. Nothing will work for you.

Click to expand...

What would work for me is to keep everything how it currently is. Apple is the problem, as they are removing any advanced features from everything they are "updating". Now everything is tailered to the extreme idiot clients, and powerusers are thrown under the bus. Seriously, take a look at everything.

10.6 - 10.7, massive loss of features.
Server edition even more so
iMovie HD 06 to 08, large loss of features
Final cut 7 to X, extreme criticism.
Airport utility, loss of many controls.
Removal of super drives from even desktop machines.
Etc and on and on

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.